« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Veep Speculation: Long-Shot Edition
By now, the topic of who Barack Obama will choose as his Vice Presidential nominee has beed discussed, cussed and fussed to death.
So, allow me to kick the corpse a little more. But, I'm going to do it with a somewhat different angle.
This post will talk about a few people that I think are viable VP candidates who are either VERY long shots or off the board entirely.
Please note: I'm only making the cases FOR these people. In some cases, I'm very familiar with the arguments AGAINST them. But that's not the point of this article. Nor do I endorse anyone here. (I'm long on record as supporting Gov. Kathleen Sebelius for VP.) This is speculation, designed to fuel discussion - nothing more. Feel free to make the cases against any or all of these.
These are also in no particular order.
1 - Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR). She's a centrist Dem from a state where Obama has no organization on the ground at all (hint?). She's won four Congressional elections, two to the House and two more to the Senate. She's got a good resume, is about Obama's age, and is said to be whip-smart. She's also completely off the radar.
2 - Sen. John Kerry (D-MA). Military experience? Check. Foreign policy experience? Check. Vetted? Double-check. Attack-dog surrogate? Check. Windsurfing? Turnbull & Asser shirts? Gas is $4 a gallon, and so is milk. Who cares? And, last I checked, he didn't run out on his family and ailing spouse to marry his heiress wife.
3 - Gov. Brian Schweitzer (D-MT). Small state, electorally speaking, but most definitely in play. Gregarious, popular, outspoken. Won't take crap from McCain or any other GOPer on the trail. BIG gun-rights advocate who can blunt that advantage for McCain.
4 - Gov. Janet Napolitano (D-AZ). Very popular executive in Arizona who could give McCain nightmares. (There is no GOP path to 270 that doesn't include McCain's home state.) She's a big Obama supporter who took the risk of endorsing him at a time when any female politican who didn't line up with Hillary Clinton took a beating from the DLC.
5 - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY). I've always thought that if Obama sees tightening poll trends in August, he might just pick Clinton after all. She does carry some electoral upside, especially in regions where Obama is struggling. And, as Billy Glad has noted in some of our conversations on this topic before, no politician in America plays harder ball than HRC. The 24-hour news cycle is her meat, to be sure.
As for signs like VoteBoth.com being shut down, Howard Wolfson talking up Kerry on Faux News, etc.etc., think of it this way. The Clintons' inner circle is like last year's refrigerator: it won't keep anything. So if Obama, whose inner circle is known for its air-tight seal on information, wants to spring a true August surprise by naming Clinton, wouldn't he have to send every conceivable signal in the opposite direction, just to avoid a leak?
Comments (24)
What is the one state in the union in which Barack Obama has no offices? Arkansas. Offices in every other state, including states that are a far longer shot, say, Utah, but not Arkansas. One possible explanation is that Obama already has a stealth operation in Arkansas ready to spring into action: the political machine of his VP, HRC.
August 18, 2008 7:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
IL?
August 18, 2008 7:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
?
August 18, 2008 7:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you know if he has ground operation in Illinois
August 18, 2008 7:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, he does:
http://illinois.barackobama.com/page/content/ilhome
August 18, 2008 8:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Funny little detail, isn't it
August 18, 2008 8:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not entirely clear why Clinton is only good enough when everything gets really really fucked up.
As posted elsewhere, nobody on any list including this one comes even close to the number of advantages she brings to Obama.
If Obama wants a landslide, she should be the nominee.
No-brainer.
August 18, 2008 7:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem with Clinton is not her advantages - it's her disadvantages. If you're going to be honest, you absolutely have to admit that no possible candidate brings more upside OR downside than she does.
Also, selecting Clinton does carry a risk of alienating a lot of the voters Obama brought into the process, which could be at least as bad as alienating hard-core Clinton supporters by not picking her.
Finally, I don't know why you think everything's messed up. I'm really confused by people who seem to think Obama should be ahead in August polls by 20 points. This is a marathon - not the 100-meter sprint. I think you're buying into the MSM-think that says, "Democrats should win huge across the board", when John McCain's single biggest plus is his crossover appeal to Democrats.
August 18, 2008 8:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Again, as posted elsewhere, this is idiotic, I'm sorry.
An Obama supporter will not vote for him because of Hillary?? REALLY??????? Sez a lot about Obama supporters then, doesn't it.
Bill and baggage? People who hate Bill or her baggage will never vote for Obama anyway, they are republicans. It was her campaign mistakes, not any baggage or Bill that cost her the nomination.
As for your last point, I'm not the one who suggested it. But Poblano, for instance, says that according to "the money" Obama just an instant 10-15% jump only by nominating her.
August 18, 2008 8:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
"People who hate Bill or her baggage will never vote for Obama anyway, they are republicans."
Excuse me. I don't like her baggage and wouldn't vote for Bill or want him around the WH. However, I am most definitely voting for Obama.
Broad statements like this are seldom accurate or based on solid foundation.
August 18, 2008 9:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
You seem unable to grasp the reality of the coalition Obama put together to win the primary.
Obama brought a lot of new voters into the process - voters who don't necessarily identify with a political party or an ideology. A lot of these voters are first-time registrants.
Many of these voters are disillusioned with politics in general, and Washington politicians in particular. For better or for worse, the Clintons fit the Washington politician profile.
So, many of these voters voted for Obama precisely because he is perceived to not fit that profile.
As for people who wouldn't vote for Obama/Clinton being Republicans...there are a lot of Republicans/independents voting for Obama who can't stand the Clintons, and who might not vote for him if Clinton were the VP. They don't make up the majority of Obama's coalition by any means, but they *are* a good chunk of it.
So, yeah, Obama could definitely lose support by naming Clinton. It's part of the risk/reward analysis he has to do.
By the way, do you suppose you get the reaction you get on your posts because you're rude and sarcastic? Is that the way to change anyone's thinking? Just sayin'.
August 18, 2008 11:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh - and as to my last point, I never claimed that you suggested it. Re-read what I wrote. BUT, you WERE the person who strongly implied that things were f***ed up.
August 18, 2008 11:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was vehemently against Clinton during the primary - but I think she could be the strongest choice for Obama at this point.
My first choices would be Hagel or Bloomberg though.
I'm still a Republican (although crushing on Obama since the beginning) and I don't think the country needs a complete swing to the total left - we need a return to checks and balances.
A Democrat in the White House is just as likely to abuse the office as a Republican.
I say build project style housing for everyone that works for the federal gov't in D.C. and make them share a dorm style room with someone from the 'other' party. I'd even be willing to donate to such a program, (instead of donating to political campaigns).
Lobbyists should be housed in bunks, 8 to a room, with only vending machines for food/drink.
August 18, 2008 7:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
This quote will be jacked and re-used without crediting the original author. :-) Good stuff.
August 19, 2008 8:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Speculating about VP choices is about the only fun in this I have these days.
My main problem with all of these picks is that they have major issues, all of the them.
Biden, Bayh voted for the war, Clark opposed it but has a big mouth and will be haunted by the comments he made about McCain earlier in the summer (even though he spoke the truth).
Feingold was way too kind to McCain a couple weeks ago, almost making a case for him, so erase his name. He can't attack McCain now after making him a god send.
Clinton brings in middle aged and older white women...but will she diminish Obama's lead with independents as polls show they don't like her?
Ker
August 18, 2008 8:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Meaning their love for Obama has conditions?
August 18, 2008 8:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
(continued) accidentally hit button...
Kerry I like as a politician, but will be seen as a loser. Too much baggage fresh in people's minds.
Kaine, too young, little experience. All those swing voters who fear Obama's experience will be permanently alienated. But I like Kaine.
Love Bill Richardson but was seen as a traitor to the Clintons, so he will create even more party anger from Clinton diehards.
Don't know much about Lincoln and Schweitzer, so I'm guessing they're long shots, but Schweitzer has been mentioned here and there.
Sebelius would be the other woman. Not a good idea but a great surrogate, want her on the campaign trail.
For a while I actually was rooting for Clinton, but now I'm convinced it would not be good with independents and people will say, oh look he's weak he caved, who's in charge?
Here's my shocker: Al Gore. He is not scheduled to speak at the convention to my knowledge. Isn't it odd that the current Democratic hero Gore is not scheduled to speak, except look there's a space there for VP nominee to speak.
I would accept any choice really because my support is for Barack Obama, not the VP, but I think Gore and Biden are the two. Conventional wisdom says Biden, surprise says Gore.
August 18, 2008 8:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ahh, this is getting even better.
So now you're saying that "appearing" confident is more important for his WIN than getting all those voters he's loosing in Ohio?
That "appearance" is more important than having a strong voice on economy?
You're really kidding, no?
August 18, 2008 9:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lalo is seldom accurate or based on solid foundation. (Ya know I still luv ya though, Lalo, always have!)
August 18, 2008 10:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kiss then smack. Or, smack then kiss. I know the tactic, Obama has been trying to use it on McCain. Didn't work on him, won't work on me.
And, you don't need to show where and how I'm wrong, with facts or even without. A short simple claim from you is enough, as always.
But thanks for the flowers. I love you back.
August 18, 2008 11:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Want a long shot? Lincoln Chafee of RI
August 19, 2008 12:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
I did consider Republicans. Chuck Hagel gets talked about a lot. Dick Lugar recently blew up Joe Lieberman, and that, plus Obama mentioning him at Saddleback, set tongues wagging.
Chafee is interesting. I do love this Chafee quote, in particular:
However, in the end, I don't see Obama picking a Republican, no matter how moderate. But, if he does pick one, he could do a LOT worse than Linc Chafee.
August 19, 2008 9:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary is flat out! Forget about it! I can't stand the Clintons and you are talking a lot of work to vet them and I don't see it helping him in the end. I don't trust them or want them in the white house either.
I am constantly shocked that people don't realize that GATT, WTO, and NAFTA were brought to us in a form that was destructive during the Clinton adminstraton. Also the banking deregulation that McCain's friend lead and benefited from that have brought us the current mortgage and credit crisis, happened during the Clinton years. We got the internet during that time and the teck industries were doing well... that helped at the time but some of the tough times we face now happened under the Clinton watch... why do people completely overlook these things. I can't. I was out handing out homemade flyers at bus stops to people trying to give them information about how GATT would affect the american worker. Can't forget that it was completely uncomfortable for me to do but I had to try to do something. OK end rant here...
Of the names listed here Kerry is the only one I would welcome. This person has to be ready to be president. Kerry is a choice that would do no harm and leave the senators in the senate for the greatest majority possible there.
August 19, 2008 12:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
I understand how you feel. I don't entirely agree on some of the trade stuff, but I can see your position.
Having said that, remember that Obama is a pragmatist above all else. If the following is true:
(1) his internal polling shows a clear and huge positive bump as a result of picking Clinton...
(2) he can get the after-2000 Bill Clinton vetted (stumbling block there, IMO)...
then I think it's not out of the question.
August 19, 2008 8:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment